Democracy can be problematic.

Obviously, democratic forms of government can be problematic. We have referred to several problems, if not many, in previous blogs. Of course, the reason I call Three Branch Government,as spelled out in the Constitution, Triadic government, is that a triangle is easily pictured and the 'manner' of its formation, and its 'continuation' as the same 'form', i.e. in the same 'relations' of the 'parts' to each other, is 'seen' more clearly. Of course, the same principles apply to Three Branch government, except that each of the 'Branches' has to be legally 'understood' in the way the Constitution sets it out; if that 'understanding' is not so simple or obvious, then, its understood in the manner interpreted by the Supreme Court. Of course, this depends on the 'interpretive practices' of the Court, at any particular time. But, notice the importance of that Third Branch; and notice that the Court is, exactly, one of those described Three Branches. So we actually have a situation where a Third Branch determines how the other Two Branches are to function; not how the Three Branches( inclusively) are to function. So, it appears that 'Three Branch government' is actually 'Two Branch government'. Not so in Triadic government. In Triadic government, the Bottom is the essence. The Top is the Executive, the 'sides' are the Judicial. But, its easy to notice that without a Bottom, we cannot have a Top ( the Top of what?) and certainly the Judicial 'helps' to support that Top by its interpretive practices. But, its 'interpretive practices' must be based on a democratic form or, a form of government "of People", "by People", and "for People". The "People" are the essence of government. All government, including the Judicial, is a government " for the People". If there were 'no People', who needs government?